The legacy of language: What we say, and what people hear, when we talk about genomics.

The way we "talk" about genetics plays a vital role in whether public audiences feel at ease in having conversations about it. Our research explored whether there was any difference between "what we say" and "what people hear" when providing information about genetics to community groups who are known to be missing from genomics datasets. We conducted 16 focus groups with 100 members of the British public who had limited familiarity with genomics and self-identified as belonging to communities with Black African, Black Caribbean, and Pakistani ancestry as well as people of various ancestral heritage who came from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Participants were presented with spoken messages explaining genomics and their responses to these were analyzed. Results indicated that starting conversations that framed genomics through its potential benefits were met with cynicism and skepticism. Participants cited historical and present injustices as reasons for this as well as mistrust of private companies and the government. Instead, more productive conversations led with an acknowledgment that some people have questions-and valid concerns-about genomics, before introducing any of the details about the science. To diversify genomic datasets, we need to linguistically meet public audiences where they are at. Our research has demonstrated that everyday talk about genomics, used by researchers and clinicians alike, is received differently than it is likely intended. We may inadvertently be further disengaging the very audiences that diversity programs aim to reach.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in Patients With Cancer and Immigration Background.

PURPOSE: Studies have shown that patients with cancer are more likely to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) than noncancer patients for symptom relief and hope. We aimed to evaluate factors of race, ethnic groups, and immigration status in attitude of patients with cancer in seeking out CAM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a prospective questionnaire study where information on demographics, cancer information, race/ethnicity, immigration duration, and psychosocial factors was correlated with the CAM use in a community cancer center located in the borough of Brooklyn, at New York City. RESULTS: Among 658 patients, the prevalence of CAM use was 66.11%. CAM use was 71.98% in females and 54.34% in males (P = .113 × 10-4). Patients of African descent had higher CAM use (72.73%) than the White patients (63.53%; P = .0371). There was no difference of CAM use between the US born (68.77%) and the immigrants (63.98%, P = .199) as a whole; however, comparing with the US born (66.50%), Asian-born immigrants had lower CAM use (53.77%, P = .0161), whereas Latin-American born had a numerical trend toward higher CAM use (74.83%, P = .0608). The number of years of living in the United States was not associated with more CAM use. Prayer and spirituality was the most common CAM subtype used (25.91%). There was no difference in CAM use in the respective non-White ethnic groups whether they were US born or non-US born. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients with cancer enriched with immigration background, CAM use was the highest in African American patients. The use of CAM in the non-White patients was associated with their ethnic background, regardless whether they were US born or not. Cultural roots appeared to be a strong influencing factor for the usage of CAM.

A Systematic Review of Inequalities in the Mental Health Experiences of Black African, Black Caribbean and Black-mixed UK Populations: Implications for Action.

BACKGROUND: Measurable differences in the experience and treatment of mental health conditions have been found to exist between different racial categories of community groups. The objective of this research was to review the reported mental health of Black African-Caribbean communities in the UK, determinants of mental health, and interventions to enhance their experiences of mental health services. METHOD: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement was applied. To be included, papers must be published in a peer reviewed journal; report on adult populations (over 18) from any of Black African, Black Caribbean or Black mixed people in the UK; and assess (quantitative), or discuss (qualitative) mental health experiences, determinants of mental health, or interventions intended to enhance experiences of mental health services among the target population. The aims, inclusion criteria, data extraction, and data quality evaluation were specified in advance. Searches were conducted using EBSCO (PsychInfo; MEDLINE; CINAHL Plus; psychology and behavioural sciences collection). The search strategy included search terms relating to the aim. Risk of bias was assessed using a standard tool, records were organised using Endnote, and data were extracted and synthesised using Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were included, of which 26 were quantitative and six reported exclusively on Black participants. Black populations were less likely to access mental health support via traditional pathways due to stigma and mistrust of mental health services. Black Africans especially, sought alternative help from community leaders, which increased the likelihood of accessing treatment at the point of crisis or breakdown, which in turn increased risk of being detained under the Mental Health Act and via the criminal justice system. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest a cycle of poor mental health, coercive treatment, stigma, and mistrust of services as experienced by Black communities. Evidence was limited by poorly defined ethnic categories, especially where Black populations were subsumed into one category. It is recommended that mental health services work collaboratively with cultural and faith communities in supporting Black people to cope with mental illness, navigate mental health pathways, and provide culturally appropriate advice. Protocol Registration Number PROSPERO CRD42021261510.